Want to know when they will be spraying in your area? Read on!

Chemtrailing is not weather. It's a geoengineering event; deliberate. So hazy skies caused by geoengineering are not meteorologically predictable
because they depend on the dispatch of chemtrailing craft.

On the contrary, they are very predictable. Because we know where airliners fly. You can look it up on the internet.

When I say "talk" I meant there are government papers on it that tell you they are doing it... The UK has released papers that "talk" about how they
tested biological weapons on it's own citizens! You think that means nothing?

Yes I can - it is easy - I see no actual evidence that they aer "doing it"......there - what's more I can support my argument with evidence and also
lack of evidence. you cannot support yours with anythign except hearsay.

Government papers are "hearsay"? Whatever man, I don't really care what you think... I can read and I can understand...

Those are reasons to be suspicious of governments. But they are not evidence that the supposed chemtrail programme exists today.

Good you admit that it is reason to be suspicious! That is all I am VERY VERY suspicious... In relation to the UK a reporter asked some government bod
whether these experiments are being done today and she said that it is government policy to not talk about "ONGOING RESEARCH"...

The canadian link I provided is from the GOV and it is an act that is still in use TODAY...

At the VERY least be suspicious, that is all...

What annoys me is when people poo poo the idea when they have admitted to doing it before! lol

pinting out the total lack of actual evidence is not riducule, and it IS eth way forard.

I have given you evidence but you will not listen no matter what I provide...

OTOH if you think that asking people to believe that a spraying programme from 50 years ago, from a small number of aircraft (and also from land and
sea!) for a stated purpose, that looked nothing like "chemtrails" supposedly do today, proves that there are "chemtrails" - if you think THAT is the
way forward, then I think you are the one subjecting everyone to ridicule for insulting their intelligence.

Look it doesn't matter as you will not listen to reason or logic and you will not look at the evidence... So what is the point in discussing it?

Noooooo, you don't seem to understand... They actually talk about the use of CHEMICALS to change the weather! You actually SEE a plane in the BBC
report that is used to SPRAY the chemicals...

So what exactly are we missing here?

that is it not from airliners, that it is not at high altitude, that it does not look like contrails, that he "trails" last only a few seconds whereas
"chemtrails" supposedly last much longer, that it is not a secret.

Possibly a few other things - but those spring immediately to mind as things you are missing.

Call it whatever the hell you like "cloud seeding" "chemtrailing" it is the same thing!

No - it is not - except for people who feel the need to expand the definition of chemtrails to include somethgni that does exist, just so they can say
that "see - chemtrails do exist".

Chemtrails are supposedly:
1/ done at high altitude by airliners
2/ look like contrails but last a long time
3/ done for an unknown purpose
4/ full of barium aluminium, strontium blood, pathogens or something else
5/ done in clear weather

Also if governments around the world have run SECRET experiments on it's own citizens for DECADES, what is so strange about them doing it
today in jet fuel or something like that?

you can go buy jet fuel and see if it conforms to the required standard - which is published
here - Def Std 91-91 - if you find anything outside that standard then you
might have found that elusive proof that chemtrails exist - and also evidence of a crime, since using unapproved materials in civil aircraft is
against the law.

There is MUCH more to it mate...

And yet there is no evidence of anythign at all - let alone "MUCH more" - sorry - but there shuold be bucketloads of evidence if "MUCH more" was
happening - some obvious examples:

If you want to protest cloud seeding and other forms of weather modification then I think you would do better than to hitch your wagon to the
"chemtrail" myth.

cloud seeding and other forms of weather modification DO exist - no-one has ever argued otherwise - but they loook, behave and are generated in ways
that are completely different from the chemtrail theory, which has never been shown to exist.

so all you are doing it taking a legitimate complaint about cloud seeding (etc) and clouding it (sic

Noooooo, you don't seem to understand... They actually talk about the use of CHEMICALS to change the weather! You actually SEE a plane in the BBC
report that is used to SPRAY the chemicals...

So what exactly are we missing here?

Oh, only minor details such as;

the chemical being silver iodide burnt in candles attached to the exterior of a small plane, not sprays from big jets.

The process needing to be carried out over existing cumulous clouds as it would be pointless in clear skies, there needs to be a cloud to seed and it
must be the right type.

The small matter of weather modification never leaving a trail that would be visible from the ground.

That the whole process is about as different from jets leaving high altitude contrails that it is possible to get.

Call it whatever the hell you like "cloud seeding" "chemtrailing" it is the same thing!

Except that only a few minutes real reading shows they are anything but.

Also if governments around the world have run SECRET experiments on it's own citizens for DECADES, what is so strange about them doing it today
in jet fuel or something like that?

Nothing at all, but why do you assume they ARE doing it when all there's ever been is a lot of shouting from the likes of Will Thomas and his mates
and nothing of substance at all?

Why are YOU convinced by photos that are deliberately mis-identified, test results that are demonbstrably false, strawmen arguments about weather
modification/agent orange etc and all the other fake stuff. If its a real problem, where's the real evidence?

Why the hang up with chemtrails? What's wrong with the very real problem of exhaust pollution, in which aircraft do play a part?

that is it not from airliners, that it is not at high altitude, that it does not look like contrails, that he "trails" last only a few seconds
whereas "chemtrails" supposedly last much longer, that it is not a secret.

Okay so they have been messing about with this tech for over 50 years but they have not progressed? They have NO secret trials going on? Yeah okay
mate... How do you know they haven't developed a means to mix this stuff into jet fuel?

Look I really can't be bothered with you because you just make up all sorts of non-sense and claims that just are not true... I will not waste my
time arguing this with you as you have already completely made up your mind... Besides I don't care what you think about it...

When I say "talk" I meant there are government papers on it that tell you they are doing it... The UK has released papers that "talk" about how they
tested biological weapons on it's own citizens! You think that means nothing?

that is not "talking" about weather modification

Yes I can - it is easy - I see no actual evidence that they aer "doing it"......there - what's more I can support my argument with evidence and also
lack of evidence. you cannot support yours with anythign except hearsay.

Government papers are "hearsay"? Whatever man, I don't really care what you think... I can read and I can understand...

I disagree - apparently you cannot understand that chemical warfare experiments from teh 50's though 70's are not actually evidence of the supposed
chemtrails of today at all.

Those are reasons to be suspicious of governments. But they are not evidence that the supposed chemtrail programme exists today.

Good you admit that it is reason to be suspicious!

If you look up "aloysius and "suspicious" in the search engine yuo will find it is not something I have adopted recently!

That is all I am VERY VERY suspicious... In relation to the UK a reporter asked some government bod whether these experiments are being done
today and she said that it is government policy to not talk about "ONGOING RESEARCH"...

indeed - they make that exact comment about everything - so this is not actually evidence of anything at all

The canadian link I provided is from the GOV and it is an act that is still in use TODAY...

Again - it is not actually evidence that anything is being done right now

At the VERY least be suspicious, that is all...

Well it wasn't all that you were saying before, but it is an improvement in that it is something you can justify

What annoys me is when people poo poo the idea when they have admitted to doing it before! lol

If you read and understand you will see that almost all the posts "poo poo" the EVIDENCE that has been produced to "priove" that chemtrails exist

and, as above, spraying for 1 purpose 50-40 years ago is not evidence that it is happening for anotehr purpose today.

pinting out the total lack of actual evidence is not riducule, and it IS eth way forard.

I have given you evidence but you will not listen no matter what I provide...

I look at as much as I can, and it is invariably rubbish.

OTOH if you think that asking people to believe that a spraying programme from 50 years ago, from a small number of aircraft (and also from land and
sea!) for a stated purpose, that looked nothing like "chemtrails" supposedly do today, proves that there are "chemtrails" - if you think THAT is the
way forward, then I think you are the one subjecting everyone to ridicule for insulting their intelligence.

Look it doesn't matter as you will not listen to reason or logic and you will not look at the evidence... So what is the point in discussing it?

I looked at your evidence - it is not actually new - you do realise that peole have been putting the same stuff op as "proof" of chemtrails for years
now? perhaps if you searched around a bit to find out why your "evidence" does not stack up you would be less angry.

the fact that it is rubbish does not mean I didn't look at it - it means it is rubbish.

the chemical being silver iodide burnt in candles attached to the exterior of a small plane, not sprays from big jets.

But this is just the parts they tell you about! Tell me, did they tell people in the uk they were testing biological weapons on them? Of course not!
Don't be silly! There is an amount of reading between the lines needed here! They are not just going to say that they are spraying the atmosphere
with airliners are they! lol Maybe they will in another 50 something years!

Again I will not bother to debate this with you as you will not listen to any kind of reason... So what is the point?

that is it not from airliners, that it is not at high altitude, that it does not look like contrails, that he "trails" last only a few seconds
whereas "chemtrails" supposedly last much longer, that it is not a secret.

Okay so they have been messing about with this tech for over 50 years but they have not progressed? They have NO secret trials going on? Yeah okay
mate... How do you know they haven't developed a means to mix this stuff into jet fuel?

Look I really can't be bothered with you because you just make up all sorts of non-sense and claims that just are not true... I will not waste my
time arguing this with you as you have already completely made up your mind... Besides I don't care what you think about it...

Aside from the technology required to mix some mythical formula into jet fuel, there would be many, many more hurdles to conquer for that one. For
one, chemistry - substances would have to be able to withstand the heat of the engine. I'm you sure understand that those engines get a wee bit
warm. Second, material sciences - the engines themselves would have to be capable of operating with these substances without issues. Third,
introducing it into the fuel - where exactly is this stuff going to be put into the fuel? The fuel manufacturer, the tanks at the airport? Fourth,
the chemicals themselves - who is going to manufacture them? Fifth - jet fuel testing. How do you propose they get by the independant jet fuel
testing that is done? Jet fuel standards are EXTREMELY strict.

I could keep going on, but I think you get the point I am trying to make here - the infrastructure required to do that sort of thing would require a
rather unreasonable (make that nearly impossible) amount of technology, cooperation, secrecy, etc ... simply put, its not feasable. It would be a
hell of a lot easier to simply hide a mechanism on a plane.

that is it not from airliners, that it is not at high altitude, that it does not look like contrails, that he "trails" last only a few seconds
whereas "chemtrails" supposedly last much longer, that it is not a secret.

Okay so they have been messing about with this tech for over 50 years but they have not progressed?

What is "this tech"?? Being able to "spray stuff" from aircraft has been happening since at least the 1920's - the technology to do so is common
- from firefighters to agricultural sprayers.

The testing in the 1950's-70's was unconnected with weather modification and geoengineering.
Are you saying you have some evidence that those tests are still going on in another form? Oh...no - we've allready established that you do
not...

They have NO secret trials going on?

where did I say that?

Yeah okay mate... How do you know they haven't developed a means to mix this stuff into jet fuel?

What is "this stuff"?? go buy some jet fuel - test it. you have a link to what is allowed in jet fuel.....

Look I really can't be bothered with you because you just make up all sorts of non-sense and claims that just are not true...

Name 1 claim I made that is not true?

.

I will not waste my time arguing this with you as you have already completely made up your mind...

I am persuaeded by credible evidence - the day you give me credible evidence that "chemtrails" exist is the day I will believe that evidence.

Originally posted by mrdeadfolx
I've noticed that too, the forecast does indeed mention haziness in the late afternoon, oddly specific. Only on the televised forecast though, for
our station anyway. The website doesn't mention the word "hazy". Interesting..

We here in Ontario have never had a sunny day start to finish in the past 10 years and I can tell you I am unemployable so I spend every day I can in
the yard and I observe....

Not one sunny blue sky day from morning to night ever!

I agree with your post and I can't explain the lack of a blue sky (Azure) but I sure am aware of it.

Originally posted by Iwinder
[
We here in Ontario have never had a sunny day start to finish in the past 10 years and I can tell you I am unemployable so I spend every day I can in
the yard and I observe....

Not one sunny blue sky day from morning to night ever!

I agree with your post and I can't explain the lack of a blue sky (Azure) but I sure am aware of it.

What are you talking about? THATS the methodology, it is used right now, Thailands air force has a dedicated flight of about 9 cloud seeding aircraft.
Why 9 small aircraft and not one big one? Because that's what works. Trying to cloud seed with a 747 would be the epitomy of the saying 'using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut'. Instead of just dismissing info that is offered to you, why not open your mind a little and at least check it out? It
seems you are the one who had already decided and will not be shaken.

Incidentally, the UK did not, or did not admit, testing biological weapons on the populace. Maybe you need to read that again to understand it
better?

You clearly have a firm point of view, so could you answer the questions I asked in my previous post?

Originally posted by mee30
Noooooo, you don't seem to understand... They actually talk about the use of CHEMICALS to change the weather! You actually SEE a plane in the BBC
report that is used to SPRAY the chemicals...

So what exactly are we missing here?

Basic common sense? The ability to listen? The ability not to be conned by the flim-flam men?

Quote "As far as that video goes, it's been laughed off of ATS more times than I care to count. The pictures show the interior of planes set up for
in-flight testing of weight distribution.

But really ... do you have anything that hasnt actually been rehashed on here a few hundred times?"

All this wisdom from a member whom joined just this year........I do believe your post was a bit harsh considering your past post history.

Regards, Iwinder

Time registered and stars and flags ... absolutely irrelevant, and meaningless in every sense of the word. If I wanted kudos, I'd have been posting
for years and creating threads about 9/11 and Ron Paul conspiracies. I'm not really concerned with being a bit harsh, sorry.

Originally posted by Iwinder
[
We here in Ontario have never had a sunny day start to finish in the past 10 years and I can tell you I am unemployable so I spend every day I can in
the yard and I observe....

Not one sunny blue sky day from morning to night ever!

I agree with your post and I can't explain the lack of a blue sky (Azure) but I sure am aware of it.

Originally posted by mee30
When I say "talk" I meant there are government papers on it that tell you they are doing it... The UK has released papers that "talk" about how
they tested biological weapons on it's own citizens! You think that means nothing?

No. They carried out experiments to help determine how such weapons might disperse if the Russians, as we strongly suspected they might at the time,
attacked us. So that we would have some hope of warning people and reducing casualties.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.